Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Last Blog!
“The notion that we should simply let nature take its course is, in a world so thoroughly dominated by humanity, as dangerous as it is self-contradictory. We cannot simply do nothing; neglect will not benign.” (73, End of the Wild)
“UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not” (The Lorax)
I think these quotes illustrate a major theme in this class, that we have to actively want change. This is the biggest lesson I’ve taken from this class, and hopefully, I will still value it in the future.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
My favorite Quotes
My two favorite quotes from this semester were:
“Guess what percentage of total material flow through this system is still in product or use 6 months after their sale in
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, rather than bemoaning human industry, we had reason to champion it? If environmentalists as well as automobile makers could applaud every time someone exchanged an old car for a new one, because new cars purified the air and produced drinking water?....If modern societies were perceived as increasing assets and delights on a very large scale, instead of bringing the planet to the brink of disaster?” Cradle to Cradle, page 90
I love these two quotes. The first one shows the true crisis that we are in right now – it illustrates the amount of consumption in the
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The one problem I see with the authors' innovations is that unfortunately, I don't see them taking shape any time soon. I think the world today is not ready to completely change the "cradle-to-grave" pattern that is so much inherent in everything we do. For us to make the switch to "cradle-to-cradle" I think civilization as we know it will have to almost decompose so that we can start over again. Hopefully, I will be proved wrong, and maybe as countries are developing, people will begin to emphasize new ways to expand our relationship with the environment.
Cradle to Cradle
On a side note, the book's form is definitely a talking point. I had it on the coffee table, and I mentioned to a friend about the plastic involved in making it, which got her interested. She wants to borrow it after I'm done. I think the solutions that the authors propose, and the general idea that we should think outside traditional views, would be effective and many would be eager to adapt to them.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
One thing I would like to hear more about that i wasn't quite sold on, was the part about regulation. They seemed to say that regulations make it harder for some to compete and leave little time or resources for developing new ideas. I would venture that if we don't make being "bad" more expensive to companies, they will have little incentive to look for new ways to be "good". However, they just touched on the subject and i may have misunderstood, or my logic itself may be askew (although my logic is NEVER askew! :) )
Plus, gardens for roofs....AWESOME! My only question, do they have to be watered? who waters them?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Cradle to Cradle
I think that the “Cradle to Cradle” vision is on the right track. It was really interesting to read about how recycling may help the environment in some ways, but in other ways it only adds more pollutants and lower quality materials. I completely agree that it is important to be effective over being efficient. It’s amazing how similar the two words are but how different their meanings are. The best part about the book for me was that McDonough and Braungart stress that creativity and imagination are really important with our future in improving the environment. This means to me that saving the environment is not a pain – it does not need to be something “less fun” than what we have now; instead, we can think of new ways to do what we used to do, to use different materials to make what we used to make. Plus, saving the environment can be more convenient and fun – I wish I was at home so I could read the book WHILE swimming in the pool. That’s cool; it is something we would want to be able to do regardless of saving the environment. That is what is so great about their vision – they make saving the environment fun.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Nature
I also toured an indigenous community that, before modernity, thrived off the land. To see what “civilization” has done to these communities was horrifying, and I realized that nature was not just a luxury concern for those who could afford to worry about it, but it was a diverse ecosystem that should be protected from our own interests.
I believe nature is very much something worth saving, as long as it can be done without costing development opportunities. One only needs to look at Haiti and the Dominican Republic to see that development at the expense of the environment can yield harsh consequences.
Question #7
As a kid, I loved to go in the woods behind my house and imagine that I was in a different world. I would explore along the creek, and I could make my own home away from home, my own little secret hide-out. I always felt so relaxed and happy when I was out there – and I can definitely say that my experiences out there are some of my favorite memories. Most of my favorite memories are from when I was out in “nature.”
Yes – nature is worth working to safe. The reasons for this are endless – so I will give just one. My sister got her master’s degree in family counseling and a part of this included a lot of reading about child development. A problem in our current world is that children are not outside in “nature” enough and instead of going outside and using their imagination, they are placed in more and more structured environments. This clearly negatively effects their development, and when they become adults they have trouble organizing themselves. Again – there are a LOT of reasons that nature is worth saving, so I thought I would mention something that probably would not be discussed.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Conversation
While the conversation was respectful, I came away from it thinking that because of the wealth of environmental issues, it would be near impossible for two people to agree completely about the environment. They were also so concerned with the political rhetoric and macro view of the environment that they lost sight of personal accountability and action.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Environment Conversation
I would say the conversation went quite well. She seemed to understand exactly what I was saying and was able to relate from her own practices. She saves everything (she even returned the old wrapping paper that my dad used on her old birthday present - she thought we could use it again), and so I would say that she is a really good example that people can reuse and recycle a lot of things that we normally do not think to reuse. And that is what I learned - that things I would never think to save can be used multiple times.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Food
I agree with Hilary that, most likely, the food we eat out has the greatest environmental impact. We see the costs that when we make our own food, and accepting it is part of the cooking process. Does the environment even play a part in our decision making when going out? I’m a huge fan of Todai Sushi Buffet...but buffets can’t be good for the environment. That sad, the General Tso’s Chicken from Mr. Chen’s Organic Chinese food is amazingly tasty.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Hmmm....
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Food I Eat
Before taking the ecological footprint quiz, I really hadn’t thought about the environment when buying food. I just thought that the big changes I was making toward the environment were with transportation. Yet, after taking the quiz, I’ve definitely thought about it a lot more. Sadly, because its winter and because we live in
When I think about the environment I think about how far food has traveled so that it can be in my local grocery store. I probably think about this process more when buying produce than other food items. I don’t really eat much meat, but I do eat some fish, and after hearing about fisheries being over fished I have contemplated this issue as well. At the same time, being a vegetarian for so many years, I find that it is important for me to eat chicken or fish when I can because it is really important for me to get protein, so I find that this is somewhat of a dilemma with what positive choice I should make (to be healthy, or to help the environment in some small way). In the last few days the food I ate that probably has the greatest environmental impact is probably the food I ate from going out to eat.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
No Other Option
Dan also brings in a good point about how, up until now, technology has mostly degraded the environment even more. Personally, I blame a lot of our problems on the Industrial Revolution so many years ago; but, how else were humans to evolve? We are where we are right now because of it and I think that's a good thing. The development of CFCs provides us with another example of how technology has further damaged our planet. The answer to this problem was the creation of international laws about CFC usage. This worked out surprisingly well, but I doubt whether we can rely on international agreements to solve the rest of our environmental problems.
Conclusively, I believe that because of the way our society is set up, we have no option but to rely on technology to save us. Do I think this is the best answer? No, probably not because in creating new technology, we are creating new waste. But until the next Einstein is born, I don't see any other option.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Technology
Technology is neither the absolute holy grail nor the destruction of humanity. It just is, and there is not that much we can do but accept that.
Technology is only a manifestation of our will. If we do end up being “saved”, then it will be because humanity yearns to be.
Small Steps Are Better Than No Steps
I realize all this sounds like I'm saying technology is bad, but i still believe in it, and I suppose thats partly true. However, technology has developed to a level that it cannot all fall under one all-encompassing category. The chainsaw, machine gun, i-phone and reusable energy have virtually nothing in common other than that they were all at one time technological innovations. There is lots of harmful technology but there is an increasing amount of good technologies that are helping the developed world 'clean up their acts' (granted, not enough, but still). One thing that studying at AU has made me realize is that man's greed and self-interest can cause unimaginable damage, but man's intelligence and imagination (to use a word from class) can produce even more amazing ideas and advancements. I have yet to read or see anything that has deferred me from the idea that environmental solutions and the global economy are going to have to find a way to work together not against each other. Aside from a large scale disaster (which at this rate is not out of the question) trying to localize our economy that is increasingly and actively becoming global is not feasible. There is a lot of talk and complaining about a lack of solutions, but so far the only place i see any real improvements being made is in the area of technology, positive technology. I believe there is a way to provide profitable incentives to persuade governments and corporations that going 'green' can be good for them as well as for the world and i see this happening through positive technologies.
I will be the first to admit that my knowledge in the area is limited and I may be overly optomistic, perhaps to a counter-productive extent, and perhaps even lacking in my own imagination when it comes to the state of the economy, yet i see the development of positive technologies as the most viable route to feasible solutions. We must divide 'technology' into categories of positive and negative when it comes the environment, once that happens environmentalists can stop being divided on this issue and stop fighting against the technologies that are helping. Even if you don't believe that technology can save us, there are technologies that are helping, and small steps are better than no steps.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Question #4 - Technology
For my journal entry, I am going to focus just on the first group of questions – on whether or not technology will save us. I personally believe that if something is going to save us, technology will be a part of it. For our world to get better humans either need to go back to a more simplistic way of living (go backwards), or go towards the future. Going towards the future would mean that technological advances would have to help us. I think that humans, specifically Americans, like their lifestyle. I think that telling someone that they need to resort back to a way of living 200-300 years ago would result in some pretty nasty responses. Americans like to find new and better ways of doing things, they do not give up on a current system and return to a older one. However, it is possible that they might get rid of their current situation (which is completely destroying the environment) because something better and more efficient has come along. This is why I think that not only technology will save up, but that it has to save us. In environmental terms this means a few things. One, technology will have to improve in such a way that it betters our environment. It also has to be done in such a way that affluence or consumption does not continue to increase. Furthermore, technology cannot wipe out living species or take away more of natural resources, but it should work to protect those things. Humans must also make sure that they are in “control,” because we do not want future technology removing the capability for humans to think or act. Technology must be used as a tool to help steer the world in the right direction, but it must be done strategically and have its limitations.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Week 4
Are We Doing Enough?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Week 4
I initially agreed and was moved by this article. Mentions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Paul Revere elicited that initial reaction, and as a student, simplicity has bad connotations. There are plenty of good points in this article, but the books we have read in this class are all available publicly. Environmental organizations publish on a wide range of complex policies. Maniates mentions the Live Earth concert addressing simple solutions; it was a concert series, not a symposium or conference!
“We’re ready for frank talk about how we best confront...the planetary emergency before us.” Academics and environmentalists all agree that we need to reduce carbon emissions, but if people who are familiar with the environmental literature can’t figure out the best way to do this, how is the common man? Analysis of a recent journal article in Science that declared biofuels to be more environmentally dangerous than fossil fuels was in The Washington Post and all major news papers. The environment debate is public. There is no giant conspiracy to keep things easy. Information is available, and will be consumed, by the people that are interested and will act on it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Environmental Problems are Human Problems
He refers in his piece to great leaders who inspired people to make tough choices that changed the world: Martin Luther King Jr., Paul Revere and Franklin Roosevelt. However there is a major flaw when it comes to comparing our environmental crisis to the Revolutionary War, Civil Rights movement or fighting facism. All these battles had to do with human rights and while I would absolutely agree that environmental problems are human problems because, as we have discussed in class, humans are inherently connected to this planet we inhabit, we have also discussed how in general humans have seperated themselves, placed themselves above, the issues of the planet. When it comes to protecting their nation or their rights or their families or their ideals many people are still willing to make hard choices and take strong action, but when it comes to protecting their planet it is much harder to inspire the kind of passion that is necessary for taking the hard steps towards change. It's undoubtedly a sad fact, but i believe that it is true. Even with all the books he mentioned about the 'easy' steps, when you look around many have not even taken these small steps so how can you assume that these people will care enough to take the large ones.
On the brighter side, awareness is being spread and more and more people are acknowledging the huge environmental problems that lie at our doorstep. I do not deny that people are capable of the revolutionary change that is needed to save our planet, but it will not be as easy to get people involved in the push for environmental change as it is to get them involved in issues of human rights (not at all to imply that those are easy fights, but hopefully you get what i mean.) It will take more widespread acknowledgement of the problems, great leaders and frankly, a new 'spin' to make people realize that environmental issues are human issues and they are our issues to inspire people to protect their planet with the same fervor they would protect their country with.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Week 2
Many of Barrack Obama’s proposals coincide with the market liberal’s, even if he does put much of the focus on government spending. One thing I did notice was the focus on ethanol. While the numbers vary, every debate on the virtues of ethanol for fuel raises the issue that just one tank full of ethanol could contain as many calories needed to feed a person for almost a year. Private industry hasn’t found the best solutions to the problems in the environment, but that doesn’t mean the government knows best.
Obama certainly shows much more of an effort into describing his environmental stance, but I don’t know if any of the candidates make sense. And keeping in mind that the President certainly has power in the U.S. Environmental policies, so does Congress. The environmental issues that are facing this country will transform over the next 8 years; new issues will come up, and some might fade away. So which candidate do I trust to react to these issues with appropriate solutions? No idea...
Monday, February 4, 2008
Week 3- Political Candidates
The two candidates I chose are Barack Obama and John McCain. I first argue that Barack is a market liberal. His plan is highly focused on the economy. This can be seen through his market based cap-and-trade system by using generated revenue to help develop clean energy or job training for more environmentally-friendly jobs. He also wants to invest about $150 billion dollars in clean energy. Market liberals also think that technology and science can help solve environmental problems, and Obama wants to double funding for scientific research and cleaner technologies.
John McCain is also a market liberal. On his website it even says, “Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy” (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm). Thus, it is obvious to me that he is a market liberal, considering that he fits the description exactly.
It is interesting that I have put the two candidates into the same category. In this sense, the category does not help me make any sense of the differences between the candidates. However, by looking at their actual policy recommendations and plans one is able to notice clear differences. For example, it is clear to me that Barack Obama is taking on more to protect the environment because he has a page full of plans and ideas for how to better to protect the environment—not to mention at the top of the page he mentions that it is “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/). Yet, John McCain does actually address any set plans on his website. All he mentions is that he is concerned about the issue but offers no specific solutions.
What Environmental Problem? Oh, you must mean our foreign oil security problem...
I don't really see these categories as being all that helpful for categorizing candidates. The categories make sense and definitley have there uses, but it doesn't really make the candidate's policies any clearer for me personally. However, I can see how some might find these categories useful to simplify the candidates views and organize them in their mind.
Of Clinton and Romney I think its very clear that Clinton has a better policy plan. First of all because she acknowledges the problem and I believe the institutional approach is a very reasonable one. Governments are going to have to get increasingly involved and providing regulations, research funding and commitments is a far more reasonable start than Romney's plan of 'there's some kind of energy crisis going on, so we should drill up our own nature, and cause more problems, to find more oil so that we don't need Russia and the Middle East anymore'. Romeny has a energy plan, not an environmental plan, and a bad one at that, so in this case Clinton definitley has the better policy for adressing environmental issues.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Week 2
2.) I think being environmentally friendly revolves less around the actions we take as individuals, but more in our mindset. The consequences of actions change over time. We all assume driving a hybrid car is living the “environmentally friendly” way, and while it saves on gas, people are driving them much more because they can justify it to themselves. Because of food production costs going up (environmentally and financially), studies have shown walking can be more environmentally hazardous than driving. Obviously, we should recycle to be environmentally friendly. We can buy those curvy environment friendly light bulbs. But more importantly, we have to care. And genuine caring doesn’t happen by scaring people to push them to drive hybrid cars or take public transportation. Many people drive Priuses not because they care, but because it says they care.
I do care about the environment and act in an environmentally friendly way. For the most part. This summer I spent a week in Taman Negara, Malaysia, one of the oldest rain forests, well aware that it might not be there for my grand children to visit. And realizing that puts things in perspective.
Week 1 Discussion
I think that living in an environmentally friendly way means, at the very least, that you are conscious of how your actions affect the planet. In our developed, technological world, there is truthfully only so much one can do. I try to be as careful as I can about being nice to the environment--I recycle what I can, turn off electronics when I leave my apartment for the day, reuse whatever I can, and walk almost everywhere. I can also say this is true for most of my friends, though the environment doesn't come up very often in conversations. I'm not one to go up to strangers and make suggestions about how they could takes steps to save the environment, but I do notice that when I go home, I will comment to my parents if they are being wasteful.
Week 2 Questions
2) To live in an environmentally friendly way one works toward improving the environment. What ones does may differ, but just striving to improve one's lifestyle is being environmentally friendly. Some examples of this include: recycling, taking shorter showers so that you do not waste water, turning lights off when you are not using them, or not buying the newest cell phone just because it exists. To be environmentally friendly one must understand what things help save the environment, and then works to implement some of those things into his or her lifestyle. I think that one can be environmentally friendly both ways-either working on it in their own life or trying to get other people to act in such a way too. However, I must say that to tell others to act a certain way, it is probably necessary that one works on those things in their own life too--nobody likes a hypocrite.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Facing an Unrecognizable Earth
The largest problems exist in the developed world. While awareness is being raised, many everyday people do not know how to help or are not willing to give up certain conveniences they have become accustomed to. Governments must stop making "commitments" and instead focus on binding agreements that could bring real results. Spreading environmental consciousness and taking national and world-wide action (especially in the western world) can help the problem of global warming and in the process of focusing on this major and looming issue other environmental problems will also be improved upon.
Without serious action on the Earth's climate problem we will end up in a world we do not recognize and may not be able to withstand or adjust too, that is why i believe that this is the most important environmental issue facing this generation.